People v Mack (Laron)

[*1] People v Mack (Laron) 2010 NY Slip Op 52073(U) [29 Misc 3d 140(A)] Decided on December 1, 2010 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 1, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., McKeon, Shulman, JJ
570520/08.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Laron Mack, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from two judgments of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (James M. Burke, J., at plea; Elisa S. Koenderman, J., at sentencing), rendered June 19, 2008, convicting him, upon his pleas of guilty, of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgments of conviction (James M. Burke, J. at plea; Elisa S. Koenderman, J., at sentencing), rendered June 19, 2008, affirmed.

The factual portion of the accusatory instrument presently challenged by defendant alleged, among other things, that a Port Authority police officer "recovered a pipe containing crack/cocaine residue" from defendant's left hand and that the officer believed the substance was crack/cocaine "based upon his professional training as a police officer in the identification of drugs and his prior experience as a police officer in drug arrests." Even accepting defendant's contention that the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument should be evaluated under the standards that apply to a misdemeanor information despite his on the record waiver of the right to be prosecuted by an information (see People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225 [2009]) we find that the factual allegations set forth in the accusatory instrument were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish both reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed the offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and a prima facie case of defendant's commission thereof (see id.; see also People v Mizell, 72 NY2d 651 [1988]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: December 01, 2010